Hi,
First thanks for taking a look at this, second sorry about the delay...
On 3/28/19 7:40 AM, John Garry wrote:
On 26/03/2019 22:39, Jeremy Linton wrote:
ACPI 6.3 adds additional fields to the MADT GICC
structure to describe SPE PPI's. We pick these out
of the cached reference to the madt_gicc structure
similarly to the core PMU code. We then create a platform
device referring to the IRQ and let the user/module loader
decide whether to load the SPE driver.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 3 ++
drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 72 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
index 7628efbe6c12..d10399b9f998 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
@@ -41,6 +41,9 @@
(!(entry) || (entry)->header.length < ACPI_MADT_GICC_MIN_LENGTH || \
(unsigned long)(entry) + (entry)->header.length > (end))
+#define ACPI_MADT_GICC_SPE (ACPI_OFFSET(struct
acpi_madt_generic_interrupt, \
+ spe_interrupt) + sizeof(u16))
+
/* Basic configuration for ACPI */
#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
pgprot_t __acpi_get_mem_attribute(phys_addr_t addr);
diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
index 0f197516d708..a2418108eab2 100644
--- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
@@ -74,6 +74,73 @@ static void arm_pmu_acpi_unregister_irq(int cpu)
acpi_unregister_gsi(gsi);
}
+static struct resource spe_resources[] = {
+ {
+ /* irq */
+ .flags = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
+ }
+};
+
+static struct platform_device spe_dev = {
+ .name = "arm,spe-v1",
+ .id = -1,
+ .resource = spe_resources,
+ .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(spe_resources)
+};
+
+/*
+ * For lack of a better place,
It seems that the kernel Image size can now increase due to this part of
SPE support even if ARM_SPE_PMU config is disabled.
That is true, but it should be fairly small.
And I don't even think that ARM_SPE_PMU depends on ARM_PMU (which
ARM_PMU_ACPI depends on).
Well I don't think we want the generic SPE_PMU dependent on ACPI. So
this chunk of code could be wrapped in a SPE_PMU_ACPI block, and made
dependent on PMU_ACPI. OTOH, It seems a little trivial for that, and
maybe just tweaking the PMU_ACPI documentation to mention that it also
enables ACPI/SPE is a better plan.
Opinions?
Thanks,
John
hook the normal PMU MADT walk
+ * and create a SPE device if we detect a recent MADT with
+ * a homogeneous PPI mapping.
+ */
+static int arm_spe_acpi_parse_irqs(void)
+{
+ int cpu, ret, irq;
+ int hetid;
+ u16 gsi = 0;
+ bool first = true;
+
+ struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc;
+
+ /*
+ * sanity check all the GICC tables for the same interrupt number
+ * for now we only support homogeneous ACPI/SPE machines.
+ */
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+ gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);
+
+ if (gicc->header.length < ACPI_MADT_GICC_SPE)
+ return -ENODEV;
+ if (first) {
+ gsi = gicc->spe_interrupt;
+ if (!gsi)
+ return -ENODEV;
+ hetid = find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu);
+ first = false;
+ } else if ((gsi != gicc->spe_interrupt) ||
+ (hetid != find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu))) {
+ pr_warn("ACPI: SPE must be homogeneous\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ }
+
+ irq = acpi_register_gsi(NULL, gsi, ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE,
+ ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH);
+ if (irq < 0) {
+ pr_warn("ACPI: SPE Unable to register interrupt: %d\n", gsi);
+ return irq;
+ }
+
+ spe_resources[0].start = irq;
+ ret = platform_device_register(&spe_dev);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ pr_warn("ACPI: SPE: Unable to register device\n");
+ acpi_unregister_gsi(gsi);
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
static int arm_pmu_acpi_parse_irqs(void)
{
int irq, cpu, irq_cpu, err;
@@ -279,6 +346,8 @@ static int arm_pmu_acpi_init(void)
if (acpi_disabled)
return 0;
+ arm_spe_acpi_parse_irqs(); /* failures are expected */
+
ret = arm_pmu_acpi_parse_irqs();
if (ret)
return ret;
